>> Freeforming the debate as I go will lead to me misstepping and
>> making mistakes.
Factual, rather than self pitying. If admitting to mistakes is self pity then I pity myself a lot. I don't see admitting to mistakes as being a problem, rather an asset.
>Evidently. And sometimes they're whoppers! :-)
Hell yes.
> I don't have the time to be labouriously checking over my posts
> to make sure I'm current and in tuen with previous comments.
>This is what we call "consistency". If you have a consistent,
>well-researched and well-supported POV, it is not hard to stay "current and
>in tune with previous comments".
Nick, I've stated a few times that the reason why I've opened and been in this debate is to actually help me build a supported POV. I have learnt from it. I had no solid POV before I came in. I have been open to argument and have been pleased and impressed with some of the thinking on it, even the things I disagree with. I Do think that you yourself have clarified your position on the Emperor too. I think we all have. This debate has been helpful to everyone in that sense.
> I do not find it "laborious" to produce
>posts about the nature of Moonson which are consistent with one another,
>because I have done a lot of thinking and writing about this specific
>subject over the past six years or so.
Good for you.
>As have my talented co-authors (Chris
>Gidlow, Michael O'Brien, and David Hall among them). Perhaps there is a
>lesson for you about the utility and robustness of the "previous version" in
>this?
Sure, but I would hope that you have learnt a lesson too, in that what you consider GAG is not as well understood by everyone as you seemed to think, nor am I trashing your work either.
>> As for digging up past digests, I don't know where you get the
>> time or the will. I think I need a Gloranthan secretary.
>I am sorry if I upset you by paying attention to what you write as if it
>were important.
Ouch! Saucer of milk, table two.
>As you may appreciate by now, for some of us the apparent
>scrapping of three to six years' of our best work *is* important.
Which noone is doing. I believed that your view was one thing, based on the evidence I'd seen. You have told me that it is another thing. I believe you. Why can you not believe me when I say that noone is targetting your work for termination? That would imply a desire to deliberately knobble your stuff, which I can assure you is lacking. I disagree with some of your stuff, but I defy you to claim that even you hold your views sacrasanct and unopen to challenge and debate.
>Watching
>you blunder through Dara Happan history and Lunar mythology armed with a
>blind faith in Moonson's "singularity" (and, apparently, little else) is a
>grotesque spectacle.
Hmm, seems to me that you have a blind faith in the validity of your POV above all others. It takes a lot of work to see you admit that your perspective is simply one interpretation and POV, not absolute truth.
>Martin, it is no secret that when your book is published, people will read
>it carefully and try to make use of it. It is a good thing that your ideas
>are being subjected to scrutiny *now*, rather than after publication.
True
>I am
>glad you have the guts to put yourself through this ordeal. But it would
>surely be less of an ordeal for you, if you presented yourself with less
>arrogance, and more willingness to listen and learn.
?!? Less arrogance? Coming from you that is rich. More willingness to listen and learn? I have opened this to debate to listen and learn when I could have simply written the book and ignored everyone else. What more do you want? If you want acceptance that your POV is true, then you have to convince me and not just believe you are the wellspring from which all things Lunar flow.
I think that this concept of GAG as being accepted and agreed by everyone is arrogant. There are many interpretations of the data we have on this list and all the people who have agreed with you have also put caveats in many of their posts and have different slants on the same thing.
>> I have believed in the past that the RMM model was based on the idea
>> of mortal men taking on the mandate of heaven (sorry, of the moon) and
>> becoming Emperor, the mandate being a set of powers that the Emperor
>> gains but having little or no impact on his behaviour.
>That is not how it was at all. That is a very facile interpretation of "Life
>of Moonson". Which of the "Life of Moonson" authors did you check your
>beliefs with, before deciding to dismiss our work out of hand as if it had
>never been written or played?
Nick, here you sum up my frustration with this debate. According to you, your position is GAG and yet I have check up with the authors to determine what this GAG is, otherwise I will get a facile impression? This is doublespeak. How can your view on the RE succession be GAG if someone who played in your game misunderstood your presentation of the situation?
I have been on the GD for 5 years and have participated in loads of debates yet I honestly thought from the material shown to me that your position on the RE was that he was a noble who recieves Emperor powers but is still mostly the noble.
If I recall correctly the Satrap of "kostaddi" (the fellow who buggered off to the cinema half way through the game) was the father of Argenteus. It seemed like he was still his son to him. These are the impressions I got. Maybe false impressions or only superfiical ones or even the tip of your RE iceberg, but they were real nonetheless. So if that is the impression _I_ got, how many other players think the same thing?
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail